Draft Final R3-1 Document (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Would the FWS please define "not uncommon" all whooping crane sightings are uncommon! Page 2. Paragraph 2. Are observational efforts at all other sites equal to that of the Platte? Page 2. Paragraph 6. The Federal Register, which designates critical habitat, does not talk about "shallow, submerged sand and gravel bars" but of sand and gravel bars, and bare islands. Page 3. Paragraph 4. How was available habitat determined for the use verses availability analysis? Was a there a systematic measurement of non -used habitat done at the same time as used? Does channel width relate to wetted width or unobstructed view? Page 3. Paragraph 5. How about the presence of an unvegetated sandbar as indicated in the list above? Are deeper channels a function of habitat selection or of natural river conditions? Do whooping cranes select for deeper water on the other 99.9% of their roost sites or is this Platte River phenomenon. Page 4. Paragraph 2. The Joint Study model does not model roost quality as a function of discharge but `l gives a weighted usable area at different discharges. This model does nothing more than compare how water depths match up to a given range of water depths and how wide the wetted width is at various flows, multiplied by a suitability index. Page 4. Forage Habitat — Wet Meadow. Would the FWS provide the Technical Committee a summary of all known whooping crane foraging sites in Nebraska and the study report for soil thaw and biological initiation in wet meadows? Page 5. Paragraph 2. While all these items are in wet meadows how often have cranes been observed foraging on any of these items and how does that compare to observations of them foraging on waste grain? Page 6. Paragraph 3. While low ephemeral sandbars that are high enough to provide dry substrate and avoid flooding during nesting season, but not so high as to obstructive are desirable are they realistic? How does the FWS propose we get such habitat on a consistent basis? Page 6. Paragraph 6. It may be true that more birds would nest in the river if there was more island habitat but there would also be birds on the sandpits. Page 7. Paragraph 2. Would the FWS please present the data used to the Technical Committee because it 7 does not seem to correspond to data available to me from the NG &PC? Page 7. Paragraph 3. Would the Service please explain how sandpits fail to provide all essential habitat needs? Since 1992 Nebraska Public Power District and Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation A District have documented 382 least terns and 162 piping plovers being fledged off of 8 different sandpits. Page 7. Paragraph 4. Terns forage in sandpits. Birds on the river may also fly up to 2 miles to forage have we every looked at that? Casey Kruse indicated some of the Missouri River birds go extraordinary distances. Wilson (1991) did not have marked birds so is she sure the birds she observed in the river are Z the same ones from the pit. She also observed foraging at a diversion dam, which results in an unnatural concentration of minnows. Birds on river islands also leave as soon as the chicks are fledged. We have seen pre - migratory staging on our sandpits as well as our river islands. Page 8. Paragraph 1. Fledge rates and dates for plover chicks on sandpits would not indicate there is a shortage of food at least for the number of birds using the sites. The exclusion by the FWS of suitable off river whooping crane habitat and least tern and piping plover habitat is wrong. All three of these bird species utilize the very kinds of habitat that exists off the river over the extent of their occupied range. To limit whooping cranes to riverine habitat only is not justifiable. I do not think that anybody knows for sure but it is likely that more than 99% of all whooping crane roost,